Reading the extracts from Earl Spencer’s book about his sister Diana, and the king’s ruthless takedown of it, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that Spencer and the Windsors are just elite content creators now. The whole thing is basically indistinguishable from a blockbuster influencer feud, and honestly I won’t be happy until the king posts a shady TikTok of himself driving around the Sandringham estate in sunglasses with the caption: “Threatening to release the receipts but never actually releasing the receipts … kinda chic.” Soundtrack: Mariah Carey’s Obsessed.Meanwhile, perhaps trying to hide his full descent into the algorithm mines, Charles Spencer has started talking like one of those ads for twee porcelain plates you used to see in magazine supplements. You know the type – “these three little kittens are waiting to steal your heart.” Here is the earl on his Diana book, which he has called Swan Song: “At heart, this is a brother’s simple tribute to an extraordinary sister.” Mmm. And simply bound, very simply, into paginated form as a precious, simple keepsake that also happens to be one of Penguin Random House’s lead titles for autumn and the run-up to Christmas. Favourite charming tribute from today’s serialisation in the Mail? Probably the bit when Diana drags Spencer to lunch at the London restaurant San Lorenzo to announce: “My husband is in love with his valet.” Nkay.View image in fullscreenKing Charles, then the Prince of Wales, with Charles Spencer, following a banquet in Cape Town not long after Princess Diana’s death in 1997. Photograph: John Stillwell/PABut the biggest tea-spill so far has been Spencer’s claim that Charles sounded “giddily elated – like a lottery winner” in a phone call to him immediately after Diana’s death, then hissed: “Rest assured … we’ll forget about her soon enough.” Which definitely sounds like the kind of thing a father of two shockingly bereaved children would say if they were the future king character in a book written by someone quite bad at writing.By way of response, Buckingham Palace issued a statement that began with the words “while we do not comment on books as a matter of principle”, and then – hilariously – went on to comment on the book. I mean, what principles? You always see these kinds of royal statements described as “highly unusual”, and yet in recent years their sheer frequency suggests they really aren’t. The royal family – and Spencer – do absolutely everything for the ’Gram. It’s all very Alex Cooper v Alix Earle. I kept reading this week that Charles and William and Kate were “out in force” doing things like playing shinty on Bute and hosting AI summits. Yup, living for the timelines. Posting through it.And, indeed, posting about it, as that “we won’t comment on books” statement from the king continued in the more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger vein that is so particular to a contemporary social media drive-by. “His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.”Wow. Apart from the pomposity, there is precisely nothing to distinguish this from the same kind of high-horse word salad you see farted out day after day by mid-tier creators involved in online beef about abortive podcast ventures or stolen brand deals. You know the kind of thing: “I’ve stayed quiet till now … But since you want to bring this to the internet, I have receipts. I’m done protecting people. The people who know, know.”skip past newsletter promotionFree newsletter |WeeklySign up to Matters of OpinionGuardian columnists and writers on what they’ve been debating, thinking about, reading, and moreEnter your email Sign upafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenThe Daily Star reports on Charles Spencer’s memoir Swan Song: Diana, My Sister. Photograph: John Phillips/Getty ImagesCharles Spencer has, of course, done a whole book of this stuff, probablyThis makes him the one the internet is less likely to support. Just as you can simply get up in the morning and decide not to post something on social media that makes you look like a complete idiot, you can also simply not write an entire book of this stuff. Why can’t Spencer just get a turret brand to sponsor his house upkeep like Molly-Mae would? “Loving our new #pediment and #pilasters! What’s one thing you love about your house? Tell me in the comments.” Instead, here’s the earl on his Instagram earlier this week: “A month ago I read ‘Swan Song’ aloud over three days for a recording so it could be available on audiobook. When I finished recording, I thought: ‘That is exactly what I wanted and needed to say – and she would, I reckon, have approved of every word.'” Oh, for sure Diana would have approved. Absolutely. As we know, those who make money off Diana’s memory since her death tend to do so with absolute conviction that it’s what she would have wanted. Many of Diana’s indirect financial beneficiaries – her former psychics and energy healers, actors playing her in movies – give interviews announcing that her ghost has visited them to give the seal of approval to whatever commercial venture they’re involved in. Charles Spencer has yet to go down this route with Swan Song, though given the book isn’t actually published until next week – to give the Mail the best shot at the serial rights they paid him a fortune for – we definitely shouldn’t rule out the possibility that he’s keeping something spectral in reserve for the coming days. Ultimately, it’s increasingly impossible to escape the conviction that the royals and those related to them behave like leading influencers – selling the absolute maddest form of lifestyle that you can still somehow pass off as a gift to your followers. The other day I remembered an interview Prince Harry gave when his own book was out, where he said: “I genuinely believe, and I hope, that reconciliation between my family and us will have a ripple effect across the entire world. Maybe that’s lofty, maybe that’s naive.” Or maybe it’s just the lucrative way they all live now. Either way: #amazing.
Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist
What a Time to be Alive! by Marina Hyde (Guardian Faber, £20). To support the Guardian, order your signed copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of FAQs based on Marina Hydes article about Earl Spencers criticism of King Charles written in a natural conversational tone
Beginner Questions
Q What is this article actually about
A Its a columnists take on the public feud between Earl Spencer and King Charles It argues that Earl Spencers recent criticism of the King is a continuation of a very old family drama
Q Who is Earl Spencer
A He is Princess Dianas younger brother He famously gave a speech at Dianas funeral in 1997 that was seen as a direct attack on the Royal Family
Q What did Earl Spencer say about King Charles
A In a recent interview he criticized the King suggesting that Charless desire to be a global king is at odds with the reality of his position and the history of the monarchy
Q Why is this suddenly in the news again
A Because Earl Spencer made new comments in a TV interview which brought the old feud back into the public eye The article is a reaction to those new comments
Q What does the headline Charles destroys Spencer mean
A Its a bit of a sarcastic joke The article argues that Charles doesnt need to destroy Spencer because Spencers own actions and history do that for him Its not a literal statement
Intermediate Questions
Q What is the main point Marina Hyde is making
A Her main point is that this is a tired old feud She suggests that Earl Spencer is still fighting a battle from 1997 while the rest of the world including the King has moved on She portrays Spencers criticisms as ineffective and a bit sad
Q What is the Diana reference in the headline about
A The headline says If only Diana were here to click on it This is a cynical joke It suggests that the only reason this story is getting attention is because of the publics ongoing fascination with Princess Diana It implies that without her name nobody would care about Earl Spencers opinions
Q How does the article describe the relationship between Earl Spencer and King Charles
